ILNews

7th Circuit affirms attorney's fees award under Lanham Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding a plaintiff’s actions frivolous, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today has affirmed a District Court’s grant of attorney’s fees to a company that successfully defended itself after selling lamps to the plaintiff home health care provider. The 7th Circuit also granted the defendant’s motion for fees and costs pursuant to Rule 38 of the appellate rules.

In Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, LLC No. 10-2327, appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, the 7th Circuit agreed with the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $72,747. The award was based on 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which allows attorney’s fees to be awarded to prevailing parties in Lanham Act suits, but only in “exceptional cases.”

However, Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. disagreed that this was an “exceptional case.” The 7th Circuit opinion, written by Judge Richard A. Posner, explained that while the other circuits have applied different tests to define what is an “exceptional case,” the panel on this case considered what the 7th Circuit has found in past opinions, including In Door Systems, Inc. v. Pro-Line Door Systems, Inc., 126 F.3d 1028, 1031 (7th Cir. 1997).

“We said that the test was whether the conduct of the party from which the payment of attorney’s fees was sought had been ‘oppressive,’ and that ‘whether the plaintiff’s suit was oppressive’ turned on whether the suit ‘was something that might be described not just as a losing suit but as a suit that had elements of an abuse of process, whether or not it had all the elements of the tort.’ But that, we said, ‘would not be the right question if the plaintiff had prevailed and was seeking the award of attorney’s fees. In such a case the focus would be on whether the defendant had lacked a solid justification for the defense or had put the plaintiff to an unreasonable expense in suing,’” Judge Posner wrote.

The section above was in response to whether a case was “exceptional” in terms of the awarding of attorney’s fees under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Judge Posner wrote.

However, fees in that case were also sought under the Lanham Act, and the court found that the test of whether a case is “exceptional,” he wrote, “is the same under both statutes, 'oppressive' in the sense expounded in Door Systems. Id. at 1031-32.”

In later cases, he wrote, the 7th Circuit further defined “exceptional” cases to be those that “lacked merit, had elements of an abuse of process claim, and plaintiff’s conduct in the litigation unreasonably increased the cost of defending against the suit;” cases that included “vexatious litigation conduct;” and a case could be found to be exceptional for reasons “'based solely on the weakness’ of the plaintiff’s claims.”

What is puzzling, he wrote, is that there are so many different definitions of “exceptional,” something he attributed to “Circuit drift,” where some circuits see more of these types of cases than others.

In this case, Judge Posner wrote the acts of Nightingale were “frivolous,” and even though Nightingale’s claims were regarding the intended use of the lamps they purchased from Anodyne, “the district judge found that Nightingale had made the claim in an attempt to coerce a price reduction from Anodyne.”

“To bring a frivolous claim in order to obtain an advantage unrelated to obtaining a favorable judgment is to commit an abuse of process,” Judge Posner wrote.

In addition to affirming the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees, the 7th Circuit also granted Anodyne’s motion for fees and costs pursuant to Rule 38 of the appellate rules.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT